16 Oct
2018
16 Oct
'18
6:57 p.m.
On 10/15/18, Clem Cole <clemc(a)ccc.com> wrote:
#$%^ - they >>weren't<< like DECtape
from a reliability standpoint ...
ᐧ
The original DECtape was extremely reliable. Not so the TK50.
Calling it "DECtape II" was an insult to the original DECtape. The
problem wasn't so much the drive itself, but the controller. In an
effort to reduce costs, DEC used a controller that had insufficient
buffering capability for a streaming, block-replacement tape device
such as the TK50. TK50s were prone to both data-late and overrun
errors.
The block size is almost certainly 512 bytes.
-Paul W.